tatives, had been forging
his way to the front in Wisconsin politics until in 1905 he was
elected to serve as Mr. Spooner's colleague in the Senate. He
stood for radicalism in the Republican party as against Mr. Spooner's
conservatism; he was the advocate of many innovations and experiments,
while Mr. Spooner held to the old and tried forms of procedure in
public affairs. Whether Mr. La Follette was the leader of this
new propaganda or the follower of a growing sentiment in the State
does not matter to this record. It is sufficient to know that
apparently Wisconsin public opinion did not support Mr. Spooner to
a sufficient extent to justify a man of his conscientious disposition
in retaining his place as the representative of the people of that
State in the highest legislative body of the Nation. Moreover,
splendid lawyer that he was, he knew that he could find much more
lucrative employment outside the halls of legislation, and he felt
the need of making adequate provision for his family. In consequence
of these conditions, he left the Senate, and thus opened the way
for the more rapid promotion in that body of the new school of
politics for which his colleague stood, a school which, while it
has found some exponents in the House of Representatives, is not
comparatively so largely represented there as in the Senate.
The La Follette group is designated by its own disciples as
"Progressivism," whereas by outsiders it is generally referred to
as "Insurgency." Mr. La Follette came to the Senate with the Fifty-
ninth Congress, and no sooner had he entered that body then he
began to propound his doctrines there. At first, he stood alone,
but natural inclination soon drew to him such of the older Senators
as the late Jonathan P. Dolliver, of Iowa, and Moses E. Clapp, of
Minnesota, both of them men of splendid attainments and of high
moral character. With the incoming of Mr. Taft as President came
also Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, Joseph L. Bristow, of Kansas, and
Coe I. Crawford, of South Dakota, all of whom joined heartily with
Mr. La Follette in his efforts to shape legislation.
During the Sixty-first Congress, the tariff law was revised. The
Dingley Act of 1897 had grown unpopular in some portions of the
country, because it was believed that under it the duties were not
equitably distributed, and the campaign of 1908 had been fought
upon a platform declaring for a revision. When, therefore, Congress
met in Ma
|